4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Hamburg.
5.  On 30 March 1985 the applicant was attacked in an urban train by one or two men and his right leg and his back were seriously injured.
6.  By a decision of 24 April 1986, as amended by an acknowledgement (Anerkenntnis) before the Hamburg Social Court on 21 November 1988, the Hamburg Pension Office (Versorgungsamt) granted the applicant a pension under the Victims Compensation Act (Opferentschädigungsgesetz) because of a reduction in his earning capacity of 50 per cent for four months and of 30 per cent for another six months covering the period from 30 March 1985 until 31 January 1986. It found that as of 1 February 1986, the loss of earning capacity amounted to less than 25 per cent, so that no pension was payable.
7.  On 21 November 1988 the Hamburg Social Court dismissed the applicant's claim for a higher pension.
8.  On 20 March 1990 the applicant, represented by counsel, lodged a request to amend the Pension Office's decision of 24 April 1986. He argued that the damage to his health suffered as a result of the attack on 30 March 1985 had increased following the Hamburg Social Court's judgment of 21 November 1988. He claimed the payment of a pension under the Victims Compensation Act from March 1990 onwards as the loss of his earning capacity now amounted to at least 50 per cent.
9.  On 26 September 1990 the Hamburg Pension Office, having consulted its surgical expert, refused to amend its decision, arguing that there had not been an essential change in the damage caused by the attack.
10.  On 17 October 1990 the applicant brought an action in the Hamburg Social Court against the decision of the Hamburg Pension Office dated 26 September 1990.
11.  Between 22 April and 6 June 1991 the statements of three doctors treating the applicant were submitted to the Social Court.
12.  On 25 July 1991 surgical expert K., who had been appointed by the Social Court on 13 June 1991, submitted his report. He found that the applicant's loss of earning capacity since March 1990 for surgical reasons alone was below 25 per cent.
13.  On 13 December 1991 Bo., a neurological and psychiatric expert appointed by the court on 9 August 1991, submitted his report. He found that the applicant had not suffered any damage to his mental health as a result of the attack in 1985.
14.  On 15 April 1992 expert Bo. further commented on his report dated 3 December 1991 at the court's request.
15.  On 5 January 1993 the Social Court granted the applicant legal aid.
16.  On 13 January 1994 Bi., a neurological and psychiatric expert appointed by the court on 23 July 1993, submitted his report. He diagnosed the applicant as suffering from post-traumatic stress caused by the attack in 1985 and estimated the total loss of his earning capacity (including surgical and psychological aspects) at 30 per cent.
17.  By a statement dated 16 March 1994 a neurological and psychiatric doctor working for the Pension Office contested expert Bi.'s findings.
18.  On 26 June 1995 W., a neurological and psychiatric expert appointed by the court on 17 August 1994 at the applicant's request under section 109 of the Social Courts Act (see paragraph 48 below), submitted his report at the court's repeated requests. He found that the applicant had also suffered mental damage due to the constant pain in his right knee and assessed the total loss of his earning capacity (including surgical and psychological aspects) since March 1990 at 30 per cent.
19.  In a statement dated 27 October 1995 a neurological and psychiatric expert working for the Pension Office contested expert W.'s findings.
20.  On 15 May 1996 D., an orthopaedic expert appointed by the court on 2 October 1995 at the applicant's request under section 109 of the Social Courts Act, submitted his report. He found that the reduction of the applicant's earning capacity for orthopaedic reasons alone amounted to 30 per cent.
21.  On 28 August 1996 and on 17 December 1996 the applicant requested the court to expedite the proceedings.
22.  On 8 January 1997 surgical expert St., and, on 22 January 1997, the neurological and psychiatric expert Br., who were both working for the Pension Office, submitted statements on the latter's behalf.
23.  On 18 February 1997 the Hamburg Social Court held a hearing. It consulted expert Bi., who partly modified the findings he had made in his report of 1994 and found that in fact it was not sure that the impairment to the applicant's psychological well-being was caused by the attack in 1985.
24.  Following the acknowledgment of the court's proposal on 4 February 1997, the Hamburg Pension Office, by a decision of 4 April 1997, amended its decision of 26 September 1990. It found that the applicant's total earning capacity has been reduced by 30 per cent since 1 March 1990, granted him a pension under section 1 of the Victims Compensation Act (see paragraph 50 below) and ordered the payment of pension arrears of some 19,000 Deutschmarks (DEM).
25.  On 15 May 1997 and on 20 August 1997 the applicant requested the Social Court to set a date for a hearing and to deliver a judgment.
26.  On 22 September 1997 neurological and psychiatric expert Bi. submitted an additional report at the Social Court's request.
27.  On 30 September 1997 the Hamburg Social Court, having held a hearing in which it had also consulted expert Bi., dismissed the applicant's action (file no. 30 VG 11/90). It found that, having regard to the opinions of the experts it had consulted, the Hamburg Social Office's decision of 4 April 1997 was lawful, as the applicant had been suffering a reduction in his earning capacity of 30 per cent due to orthopaedic damage since March 1990, whereas no psychological damage caused by the attack had been proved.
28.  The judgment was served on 20 October 1997.
29.  On 20 November 1997 the applicant, represented by counsel, lodged an appeal with the Hamburg Social Court of Appeal. He claimed that the reduction of his earning capacity caused by the attack in 1985 amounted to 50 per cent in view of the psychological consequences of that attack in addition to the acknowledged physical damage.
30.  On 19 July 1999 the applicant's counsel, having consulted the case-file in February 1998, gave reasons for his appeal at the court's repeated requests.
31.  Between 22 November 1999 and May 2000 the applicant requested on five occasions that the Social Court of Appeal expedite the proceedings.
32.  On 3 May 2000 the Social Court of Appeal granted the applicant legal aid.
33.  On 12 and 25 October 2000 the applicant requested the court to expedite the proceedings. The court replied on 6 November 2000 stating that it was currently unable to deal with the case as it had sent the files to the Social Court at the latter's request for consultation in different proceedings.
34.  On 21 November 2001 N., a neurological and psychiatric expert appointed by the Social Court of Appeal on 19 September 2001, submitted his report. He found that no psychological damage had been caused to the applicant as a result of the attack in 1985.
35.  On 19 December 2001 the Social Court of Appeal held a hearing in which it heard the parties and consulted expert N. It granted the applicant's request under section 109 of the Social Courts Act to consult another psychiatric expert, Ke., on condition that the applicant paid for the cost of the report.
36.  On 6 February 2002 the applicant informed the court that he now had the money needed and that he could make a bank transfer covering costs.
37.  On 6 June 2002 the Social Court of Appeal appointed expert Ke.
38.  On 16 July 2002 the applicant made an additional payment of costs at the expert's and the court's request.
39.  On 3 February 2003 expert Ke. submitted his report. He found that the applicant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the attack in 1985 and estimated the reduction of the applicant's earning capacity caused by psychological damage alone to be 20 per cent.
40.  On 26 February 2003 expert Ke. further explained his report at the court's request. On 22 May 2003 the Social Court of Appeal again sent the case-file to the Social Court for a calculation of costs; the file was returned on 7 July 2003.
41.  On 27 August 2003 the applicant asked the court to expedite the proceedings.
42.  On 6 January 2004 a further neurological expert (L.) consulted by the Social Court of Appeal submitted his report in which he found that it was not proved that the applicant had suffered post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the attack in 1985.
43.  On 27 January 2004 the Hamburg Social Court of Appeal, having held a hearing, dismissed the applicant's appeal as ill-founded and did not grant him leave to appeal on points of law (file no. IV VGBf 1/97). Having regard to the expert reports before it, it considered that it had not been proved that the applicant had suffered psychological damage as a result of the attack in 1985 as, in particular, the report of expert Ke. was not convincing. The Social Court of Appeal further rejected the applicant's case alleging bias on the part of neurological and psychiatric expert L. as having been lodged out of time, arguing that the applicant's counsel had been obliged to lodge that application on receipt of the applicant's comments on the expert report at the latest (18 January 2004).
44.  The judgment was served on the applicant's counsel on 22 June 2004.
45.  On 12 July 2004 the applicant, represented by an association for the protection of social rights, lodged a complaint about the refusal to be granted leave to appeal (Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde) with the Federal Social Court. In his reasoning submitted on 19 August 2004 he claimed that the Social Court of Appeal had deviated from the case-law of the Federal Social Court. Moreover, there had been a procedural error in that the length of the proceedings from 1990 until 2004 had breached his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time under the Basic Law and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
46.  On 25 August 2004 the Federal Social Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. It considered the complaint inadmissible as the applicant had failed to substantiate that there had been a procedural error or a deviation from the case-law of the Federal Social Court. In particular, he had failed to demonstrate that the judgment dismissing his action was based on the (undue) length of the proceedings. In any event, the applicant could lodge an application under Article 34 of the Convention with the European Court of Human Rights, whereby he could obtain compensation.
47.  On 3 September 2004 the decision of the Federal Social Court was served on the applicant's representative.